JohnC

Back and forth. Back and forth. Back and forth. Let's just wait for the ruling.

I agree, and others have made the same point, that it is doubtful that he would be charged with perjury in this case. But the basic point some of us were making is that there was some legal exposure to perjury because he made a sworn statement in the legal proceeding. That's all I (we) were saying.

What the heck are you talking about. He dealt with the equipment person who handled the balls. Who else is he going to deal with regarding the balls? Who do you think Aaron Rogers deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Peyton Manning deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Rivers deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Drew Brees deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Dalton deals with regarding the balls? They all deal with the equipment staff who are responsible for the condition of the balls. Who else would they go to on that issue? Not the PR guy. Not the video guy. Not the water boy. Let's use some common sense here.

MattM/KTD, Brady swore that he never instructed anyone to lower the balls below the limit. I believe him. When Wells was asked if he had direct evidence that Brady was involved in a conspiracy regarding the balls he answered no. In addition, I have held the position from the start that the condition of the balls issue in general is a trivial and insignificant issue that didn't merit the level of response that it received. It had no effect on player performance and had no effect on the game. If the type of response regarding equipment in this case was handled in the same manner as other similar equipment issues this extended fiasco would never have occurred. Jaywalking is not manslaughter! Common sense and reasonable judgment were lacking out of the commissioner's office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/06/23/tom-brady-swears-his-innocence-in-deflategate-appeal/ "The state’s perjury law is broadly written to suggest that a person can perjure himself outside the context of an official proceeding, even when the statement is made to a private body, experts said."

I don't believe that he instructed anyone to deflate the balls below the legal limit. Whether he gave him or others gifts is not as significant as many think. He swore that he never asked any staff to provide him with balls under the limit. There is no secret that he wanted his balls at the lower end. Just as Aaron Rogers wanted his balls at the higher end. Some qbs wanted their balls worn a bit and others wanted their balls a little newer. Different balls for different qbs. I

Sorry I didn't respond to your question in the prior post. The manner in which the judge frames his decision will affect how it will be reviewed by the next level of court. He can emphasize the process and fairness issue in his ruling and do it with coherency that would favor the Brady side. If he emphasizes the authority given to RG by the CBA he can write it up in a coherent way that makes it difficult for the next level of court to overturn. There are two valid perspectives in this case. The issue isn't for the next level of court isn't whether the judge's decision is right or wrong so much as does it follow within the broad terms of the law and is it consistent with the law. You can take two separate positions and have both positions upheld based on following a particular concept of the law. There are conflicting legal issues here that both merit legitimacy.

I agree with you that it is doubtful that there would be some legal action on that issue. However, Brady has been insistent, emphasized by his sworn statements, that he was not involved in that which he is charged with. Regardless how this ends up from a suspension standpoint I believe that it is important to him not to backtrack on his claim of innocence. His reputation is important to him. Contrary to what most people here I believe Brady never instructed anyone to lower the PSIs below the limit.

I agree with Tuco. He made sworn statements regarding that he had nothing to do with the balls. If you give a false statement to the police you can be held liable for those statements. The FBI is noted for using that (false statement) charge, even if the statement wasn't given in court. In this case the sworn statement given by Brady, although not given in open court, was was given in a court proceeding.

I usually agree with your takes but I don't understand your position here. The reality is that the beloved and respected Fred simply had little left in the tank. If you factor in the business side of the business FJ's cut should not come as a surprise. McCoy's performance has little to do with Fred. There is no additional pressure on McCoy related to Jackson's departure.. The pressure on the newly acquired back comes from being acquired in a high profile trade, being highly paid and being a top tier back in the league. I simply don't see how FJ's departure raises the pressure for McCoy. I want to note that I always respect your views on the team. But to be candid on this issue you have me very perplexed.??? Sometimes it is mistake to over think an issue. Maybe it happened here????

The best thing that happened to McCoy is that Taylor won the qb competition. He spreads the defense out with his running potential and more importantly his ability to keep the play alive and throw it downfield. If Cassel would have been designated as the starter McCoy would have more cramped space to work in. Im really excited with the naming of TT as the starter. Even if he plays a controlled style of game he gives the offense an additional dimension that helps everyone, especially the OL, For a qb who hasn't started very much he is an intelligent qb knows how to read defenses.

RG certainly would want to appeal. I have no doubt about that. I have the sense that the owners would not want this saga to continue if the league's position is not upheld. If the owners believe that the judge's ruling is written in such a way that their chances are not probable to win on an appeal they would make it clear to the commissioner that this exhausting legal battle must stop. The judge in this case is very competent. Whatever opinion he renders will probably be upheld. Both parties recognize that.

There will be no deal. The league won't consider a deal unless Brady accepts some form of responsibility for the balls. He is resolute in not accepting those terms because he doesn't believe that he is culpable to any degree. In addition, he is not going to go against his sworn testimoney and put himself in jeopardy. If the league is ruled against the judge is going to write his judgment in such a way that it will be difficult to overcome in an appeal. Also, if RG loses the owners are not going to allow this fiasco to continue, regardless what the commissioner wants to do.

The judge can't alter the punishment. He either decides that RG's ruling stands or it doesn't. The judge can't modify the punishment.

What the facts of the case have demonstrated to this judge is that there is scant evidence to prove that their imaginary conspiracy case exists. I recognize that is not the focus of his attention in the case before him. The judge asked Wells if there was direct evidence that Brady was involved in the ball issue. Wells said no. Believing that your sloppily accumulated evidence indicates what you want it to indicate is far different from an objective set of eyes intrepreting what the evidence actually indicates.

In general we are in accord. The case in front of the judge mostly deals with the process. It may seem to many that I believe that only one side acted inappropriately. That's not the case. I believe that Brady should have been more cooperative right from the start. But I understand why he didn't trust RG and the league to manage a fair investigation. After examining how it was conducted it is obvious (at least to me) that not trusting the league was a reasonable position to take. My position from the start is that this was a trivial issue that should have been handled with a greater degree of proportion and common sense. The level of response with its multi-million $$$ investigation was ridiculous and absurd. RG turned a jay walking case into manslaughter case. This is a manufactured fiasco caused by a commissioner who has demonstrated time and time again that he lacks good judgment when involved in disciplinary actions. In my view the problem with RG is that he mistakenly believes that he is the law instead of he represents the law. That is a very destructive difference.

When this case first started the judge encouraged both parties to settle. He advised/warned both sides that he saw merits to both of their positions and that he was in position to make a determination that went either way. He was signaling that neither party should assume that they were on a clear cut winning side. Without a doubt the judge's focus of attention has been on how the league handled this case. Most of the pointed questions have been directed toward the league. Their constant fallback position is that they have the authority to make a judgment regardless of the merits of the case and how capriciously they acted. In my mind not only are their responses nonsubstative but sometimes very lame. One example is when the judge asked RG why he dispensed such a severe punishment to Brady. He responded that he compared it to someone who took steroids. The judge scoffed at that nonsensical response. I agree with Tuco (knowledgeable and impressive poster) that the line of questioning that the judge is posing to the league doesn't necessarily indicate how he will rule. But it can't be ignored that there is a consistent theme to his questions. The responses for the most part have been unimpressive. When one makes a legal argument that one has the authority to do whatever it wants to do, capricious as it may be, it is a weak position to take in front of a judge. Acting arrogantly before a judge is not an approach that the judge will find very endearing. Not only are their legal positions weak but their general attitude toward the court room isn't smart. Most often in court being respectful is more appropriate and productive than being imperious. There is an irony to this court case. It must be remembered that the league ran to this court to get their ruling stamped with approval. What it didn't expect is to have a judge do his job by acting judiciously.

With the depth we have in the receiver corps he is not going to be a full time player. That doesn't mean that he can't be an asset. Even if he is considered to be at the back end of the receiver corps he still offers the team a big play potential. If he gets hurt then so be it. If you are going to take a risk on a player then why not do it for someone with a special ability i.e. speed?

We disagree on that. He offers an exceptional quality, speed, that has an impact on the defense whether he is thrown to or not. Of course the concern over his durability will be factored in. But when it comes down to the large numbers in the receiving corps he is worth taking a gamble on because he has something different to offer compared to the other receivers.

We both agree that the judge is focusing on the process used by the league. It doesn't really matter if we disagree as to whether Brady is guilty or not regarding what he is charged with. The judge's priority is to focus on the process and make a judgment regarding its fairness. The judge has asked questions regarding Pash's role and lack of disclosure; he has asked questions regarding not only the timeliness of the notification to the accused but also the specificity of the charge; he has asked questions regarding the affect of the infraction on performance and the game (none); he has asked the league why the disparity in punishment between prior ball infractions and this case; he has asked the league why are the rules regarding equipment infractions directed toward the organizations when in this case it was directed toward a player? This no nonsense judge is asking pointed questions (mostly) to the league's side because it is apparent to him that this case was handled differently than other cases. He is basically asking the league why are your standards and approach different in this case? The league can't give a reasonable response (my opinion) to such an elementary question. You are correct that it is a mistake to assume that the questions the judge asks in his courtroom indicate how he will rule. But judges, especially experienced and wise judges, don't repeatingly ask similarly themed questions without a purpose. It seems to me that the judge is concentrating on the process issue because ultimately that is what he is going to rule on. The case before the judge has little to do with imprecise PSI measurements and a HOF qb. It has everything to do with the with the capricious manner in which the league conducted itself in this disciplinary case. At the end of the day he is going to make a determination on its fairness.

If you add in Goodwin to the mix then the defense is going to be spread out to account for all the quality receivers involved in the intermediate and deep passing game. With the defense loosened up the biggest beneficiaries will be the backs.

I apologize for not specifically answering the question posed here but what I found most gratifying in this game is having our TEs involved in the offense. When our first line receivers play there will be plenty of passing options that will keep the defense off balance. The TEs in this game weren't only thrown dump off passes, they were involved in the downfield passing game. That is exciting!

There is no doubt that the judge wants the parties to settle. He has made it clear to both sides, but especially to the league that he wants a settlement. If you have been casually following the case you know very well that both sides are dug in and that there won't be a settlement. So the judge is going to be forced to make a ruling. If Pash is acting as the league's attorney then why didn't he simply invoke the attorney-client priviledge? I don't know for sure but I don't think he used that priviledge in explaining why he wouldn't testify. Another issue I find confusing is if it is determined that he was involved with the investigation or the editing of the report I see no conflict with the league making an intial determination but I see a conflict when Goodell is asked to handle the appeal. That is certainly at the minimum an appearance of a conflict of interest. You can't expect the commissioner to repudiate a decision in which his proxies were involved in. In fact Wells has invoked the attorney-client priviedge when asked about his communication with commissioner's office. My problem isn't with the initial ruling by the league but it is when Goodell handled the appeal. Again, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to repudiate their own work. The simple solution to avoid this problem would have been to hand the appeal to a neutral arbitrator. I understand why RG wouldn't want to take that avenue. He has a history of having his judgments overturned when handled by a neutral party. There may be another intrepretation of the judge's focus on the league's conduct in this case. He may be establishing the foundation for a ruling against the league. As you smartly noted the judge has mostly focused on how the league handled the case and has not given too much attention to the NFLPA. I appreciate your input on this topic.

If it is such a clear cut case as you are indicating then why is the judge in this case eviserating the league over their conduct in this case in his courtroom? The judge asked Wells point blank if he had direct evidence implicating Brady in this conspiracy. Wells said no. The judge has pointed out to the league side that the evidence in which they have based their original decision is very problematic. As you pointed out the league can make some assumptions with respect to the evidence. No one is challenging that notion. But what the league can't do is skirt the procedural rules that undergird this process. One of the judge's primary responsibilities is to ensure that both sides abide by the rules. His role can be described as being a referee. From what I have observed so far is that the league has been wayward to the point of recklessness in adhering to the rules of the legal system. It seems to me (my opinion) that the judge is not going to tolerate the league's distorted view of fairness.

If his changes were were so cosmetic and benign then why isn't he saying so? It is very hard to believe that an attorney of Pash's prominence within the league office is going to be the person changing names, titles and addresses on such an important report. Your "editing" explanation doesn't seem plausible. I appreciate your legal insight on this case.